Enfield No.1 Mk.3 SHT.LE

[Guest borgnine]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the board. It seems there are plenty of friendly folk and lots of great information here!

Two days ago I bought an Enfield No.1 Mk.3 SHT.LE and from what I can figure out, it seems mine was made in Lithgow, Australia in 1920. It seems that the numbers all match (butt, bolt, bolt housing, and muzzle guard) but there are some other numbers and markings that are more mysterious. Other than that, I don't know much about it. I'm hoping some of the more knowledgeable people on this board might have some additional information which can give me some further insight into the background of this rifle. I'm attaching some photos if anyone is interested in sleuthing this one.

[Guest borgnine]

[Guest borgnine]

[Guest borgnine]

[CroppyBoy1798]

Hi Borgnine and welcome to the forum

Congrats on the SMLE, she seems to be a nice one! I'll give you a little info to get you started on your research, but be warned........once you have one SMLE, you cant stop at that, you'll have to get another

What you have is, as you know a No1 MkIII* Short Lee Enfield, the '*' meaning it was a simplifies MkIII, it had the long range volley sights removed, the magazine cutoff removes and in some cases the brass identification disc removed. And your particular rifle, was as you know, made in 1920 by Lithgow. Who were producing SMLE's from 1912 and still refurbing them as late as 1956. They only ever made the No1 MkIII and MkIII* series, but did run off a few experimental 'jungle carbines' based on the No1 action.

The serial numbers all seem to match, although at one time the reciever had a different serial and was lined out and forced matched to the rest of the gun or the weapon was simply given a new serial as I see the same lined out serial on the stock.

Just on the leg of the charger bridge you have the stamp 'JJCO NY NY' that is the stamp of the importer, John Jovino Company, based in New York. They specialised in importing Lithgow made SMLE's and have also know to have put together No1's from spare parts and pass them off as being originals. But your's seems to be ok and from what I see 100% original.

On the barrell just behind the sight is stamped HV and SC, the HV meaning 'High Velocity' and the SC 'Short Cone', they refer to the type of ammunition.

Is the same serial number stamped on the underside of the rear sight? I cant see it in the picture provided.

The, what appears to be '26' scratched into the stock could be a rack number, or a troop passing time, so thats not of great importance.

When you strp it down you are likely to find an absolute ton of inspection, proof and manufactures markings, all are interesting, but for the most part are not so important. You will probably see, on the rear of the reciever, below the woodline a line of star shape stamps with the numbers 1-10 in each of the stars, these were stamped after various inspections were carried out.

Lithgows were usually stocked in coachwood, but in earlier years Walnut and queensland maple was used. Yours appears to be coachwood. Although a hardwood, it was prone to splitting quite easily. Hence you will see a number of re-inforcing brass pins in it. Also, because of its tendancy to split, copper recoil plates had to be fitted to the rear of the forearm where the reciever meets the wood, make sure they are in place before firing the weapon!! Another point to note is that the coachwood needs a good soaking of linseed oil to keep the wood supple and prevent splitting, yours looks to be fairly well soaked so it should be ok.

Thats about it. I hope that was of some help to you and should you require any more info, have questions or such, then feel free to ask.

Al the best,

CroppyBoy1798

[Guest borgnine]

Hi Borgnine and welcome to the forum

Congrats on the SMLE, she seems to be a nice one! I'll give you a little info to get you started on your research, but be warned........once you have one SMLE, you cant stop at that, you'll have to get another

What you have is, as you know a No1 MkIII* Short Lee Enfield, the '*' meaning it was a simplifies MkIII, it had the long range volley sights removed, the magazine cutoff removes and in some cases the brass identification disc removed. And your particular rifle, was as you know, made in 1920 by Lithgow. Who were producing SMLE's from 1912 and still refurbing them as late as 1956. They only ever made the No1 MkIII and MkIII* series, but did run off a few experimental 'jungle carbines' based on the No1 action.

The serial numbers all seem to match, although at one time the reciever had a different serial and was lined out and forced matched to the rest of the gun or the weapon was simply given a new serial as I see the same lined out serial on the stock.

Just on the leg of the charger bridge you have the stamp 'JJCO NY NY' that is the stamp of the importer, John Jovino Company, based in New York. They specialised in importing Lithgow made SMLE's and have also know to have put together No1's from spare parts and pass them off as being originals. But your's seems to be ok and from what I see 100% original.

On the barrell just behind the sight is stamped HV and SC, the HV meaning 'High Velocity' and the SC 'Short Cone', they refer to the type of ammunition.

Is the same serial number stamped on the underside of the rear sight? I cant see it in the picture provided.

The, what appears to be '26' scratched into the stock could be a rack number, or a troop passing time, so thats not of great importance.

When you strp it down you are likely to find an absolute ton of inspection, proof and manufactures markings, all are interesting, but for the most part are not so important. You will probably see, on the rear of the reciever, below the woodline a line of star shape stamps with the numbers 1-10 in each of the stars, these were stamped after various inspections were carried out.

Lithgows were usually stocked in coachwood, but in earlier years Walnut and queensland maple was used. Yours appears to be coachwood. Although a hardwood, it was prone to splitting quite easily. Hence you will see a number of re-inforcing brass pins in it. Also, because of its tendancy to split, copper recoil plates had to be fitted to the rear of the forearm where the reciever meets the wood, make sure they are in place before firing the weapon!! Another point to note is that the coachwood needs a good soaking of linseed oil to keep the wood supple and prevent splitting, yours looks to be fairly well soaked so it should be ok.

Thats about it. I hope that was of some help to you and should you require any more info, have questions or such, then feel free to ask.

Al the best,

CroppyBoy1798

Wow, thanks for all the info! One question though... I can understand developing a rifle based upon a previous model, but made more simply to save time, materials, and money. But what's the point in taking a rifle and converting it to a more simple model (removing things, adding others). It seems like you'd just say, "well, that one's already made and out there, so let's just leave it and start building them a little more simply starting now." Why would they go to the time and trouble to change a rifle that's already functional? I'm sure there's a reason.

Oh, and I forgot to throw in a pic of the whole gun. I know you've probably seen plenty of them before, but anyways, here it is:

Oh, and I'm a collector on a budget (grad student). I was able to bag the Enfield for $200 USD. What other WWII era (and earlier) rifles are quality and yet affordable? I know Russian stuff is notorioius for being, shall we say, not the highest of quality (also applies to their cameras, I also collect vintage cameras as well) but I was considering looking at a Mosin-Nagant M44 or the M1891/30.

Maybe this Enfield thread will turn into a "military rifles on a shoestring budget/graduate student budget" thread?

Again, thanks for the info!

[CroppyBoy1798]

Wow, thanks for all the info! One question though... I can understand developing a rifle based upon a previous model, but made more simply to save time, materials, and money. But what's the point in taking a rifle and converting it to a more simple model (removing things, adding others). It seems like you'd just say, "well, that one's already made and out there, so let's just leave it and start building them a little more simply starting now." Why would they go to the time and trouble to change a rifle that's already functional? I'm sure there's a reason.

Happy to be of assistance. To answer your question regarding the different models of the Enfield. The previous version, the MKIII, was in all respects similar to the version you have now, but there were fitted with:

a long range volley sight system, which had a plate and dial arm in the forestock and an apeture arm in the safety setup (if you look at the safety you will see a washer in there, that space would have been occupied by the sight).

Also a magazine cutoff would have been used, the mag cut off was simply a metal plate that slid across the top of the magazine, blocking its feed so that only single rounds could be loaded and fired at a time, for controlled fire.

Also a feature of the MkIII was a brass disc in the butstock which would have had the unit or regiment, to which the rifle belonged, stamped on it.

Other minor modifications include the removal of the 'stacking swivel'. Slight alteration to the rear sight ears and the removal of the windage knob on the rear sight.

With the MkIII* these things were removed for a couple of reasons.

1. The long range volley sight was proven to be in affective and no longer needed with the large scale introduction of the machine gun.

2. The magazine cut off was outdated and no longer needed, in the heat of battle it also proved to be in affective as it could get closed by accident and leave a soldier with no feed when he needed it most!

3. The brass regiment disc, if the rifle was captured, could provide the enemy with information as to which units or regiments they were facing.

But the major factor for ommiting these items was, to save time and money. For the most part they were gotten rid of mid/late 1916, it was a war time expediment to save time, money and get rid of things that basically werent needed. It didnt change the style or design of the rifle for the most part, just removed a few bits.

For $200, you didnt do too bad at all, so well done, as for what other firearms are availible on a budget, I honestly have no idea, I'm an Enfield man so not too knowledeable on the other weapons.

Take care,

CroppyBoy1798

Edited January 29, 2006 by CroppyBoy1798